Title |
Improving the process of research ethics review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Research Integrity and Peer Review, August 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Stacey A. Page, Jeffrey Nyeboer |
Abstract |
Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met. Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities. Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 6 | 21% |
Canada | 4 | 14% |
United States | 3 | 11% |
Ireland | 2 | 7% |
Australia | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 19 | 68% |
Scientists | 6 | 21% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
Researcher | 10 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
Lecturer | 7 | 6% |
Other | 25 | 22% |
Unknown | 37 | 32% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 9% |
Social Sciences | 9 | 8% |
Computer Science | 9 | 8% |
Psychology | 5 | 4% |
Other | 25 | 22% |
Unknown | 44 | 39% |